Smart people saying smart things

In Australia, since a certified mentally ill young millionaire went on a killing spree in Tasmania in 1996, we have comparatively strict gun controls. This means for us now when the mentally ill, or the criminally disturbed, or the simply very angry in our community are provoked by their inner voices or their emotions, to act out, the worst they can usually do is brandish a very sharp knife, or a very hard fist. Several mental health support workers a year in Australia are hurt by their clients in acts of violence involving knives and fists, and a few over the past few years have been killed. But our gun controls mean there are fewer guns available for mental health clients to point at people. This is a very good thing.

If the U.S.A. intends to improve mental health services without also improving gun controls, all that’s likely to be produced is a spate of gun-related deaths against mental health workers. Improving mental health services is only half the picture. The other half is making sure the availability of those weapons capable of causing immediate and widespread catastrophic loss of life is severely limited.

I think many of us are afraid to talk to God about this tragedy and would rather talk about [God] (Where was God?) or talk about more mundane things instead (gun control; mental health). Talking to God about this horror is risky. To ask, “How long, O Lord?” is to walk the knife-edge of faith that separates believing Alyosha Karamazov from his unbelieving brother Ivan. It forces us to give full consideration to Ivan’s complaint against God – if the blessings of heaven require the suffering of just one child, then he wants none of God’s heaven. And to let that complaint out, to utter it even, is to risk – risk the shallowness of our own faith, risk really entering into the pain of others, risk really looking into the face of evil.

We need to remember that violence against children doesn’t only happen in schools. God’s presence didn’t stop thousands of children from being molested in churches. God’s presence didn’t stop a child from being called an “evil little thing” for having a different opinion from a Christian leader. God’s presence didn’t stop a pastor from suggesting violence against children who don’t conform to gender norms.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that violence against children is pervasive, and is just as likely in places where children are taught Bible lessons as they are where children are taught the three R’s.

At the heart of my faith is belief in a God for whom murders like the one in Sandy Hook are not the end of the story, a God who stands in solidarity with the victims of violence, who became incarnate in a human being and suffered every sorrow of human life, and whose death revealed the rotten core of the cycle of violence that sustains our civilization.

The God I worship is one who will not let the murder of innocents be the last word, but who promises to bring justice to the victims and justification to the perpetrator. In the end, despite all of my doubts, I am a Christian because I believe that murdered children deserve a future; and I believe that we are entitled to hope for one on their behalf. Without hope for the victims, there is no hope at all.

If you want to know whom a given community or society considers to be human, look at whom they mourn. For example, in the United States until very recently, an African-American or Mexican-American person who was lynched by a white mob was not mourned in public. Such a death didn’t really “count” as the death of a human being; in fact, such deaths were often not even counted as deaths at all–it has only been through the painstaking work of historians that we have even begun to have a public record of how many persons of color were lynched in this country during the 19th and 20th centuries. It is almost as though there is an inverse relationship between mournability and disposability. This is certainly why as Army General Tommy Franks said, when it comes to Iraqi and Afghans, “we don’t do body counts.”

… It seems to me as though Christians should not only remember the “victims of history,” who are often those whom history forgets, but also that we should mourn them. The church should do body counts. When we do, we will be a church in which all bodies count.

The Alise Wright link reminded me of the things that people like Mike Huckabee and his cohorts say about how our nation is being punished by “turning away from God.”

I want to reply, “No Mike, our nation has not turned away from God, our nation has turned away from you.”

fredgiblet

For the 6 years following the gun ban in Australia the murder rate went up. It’s true that they haven’t had any spree killing (at least not with guns) since, but the gun ban didn’t help their murder rate which, for my money, is the better thing to be worried about. Also that’s not counting the other violent crime rates which went way up as well until the general crime rate started falling again in ’02.

Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

No, it didn’t.

The overall homicide rate has been on a steady downward trend. Gun homicides as a percentage of all homicides has gone down. In the 6 years following the changes to gun laws, the number of gun homicides went down, up, down, down, up (then down, down, down, btw).

Right now, the fact that Australia hasn’t had any spree killing since 1996 seems like a pretty good deal to me. How many has America had this year alone?

On the other hand, if banning guns clearly caused a huge rise in the murder rate, I’d have expected Australia to rescind the ban.

Out of curiosity, what is the murder rate in Australia compared to the United States?

http://twitter.com/Didaktylos Paul Hantusch

The obvious retort to that is that, but for the gun ban, the murder rate would have been higher yet.

Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

Our overall murder rate is less than 1 per 100,000. Our gun homicide rate is literally one in a million. I would have to know 10,000 people for the chances of someone I know being killed by a gun to fall below 99%.

Some more interesting facts from the Australian Institute of Criminology:

1. As I mentioned earlier, the overall homicide rate has been steadily falling. The AIC notes that the drop in gun homicides specifically has not coincided with a rise in murders caused by knifes or other sharp implements.

2. The rate of suicides by gun also fell (quite dramatically), as did the rate of accidental death caused by guns.

3. Accidental gun deaths happen at a vanishingly small rate: much less than one in a million.

4. Since the firearm controls were introduced, homicide by a military style rifle is close to non-existent. There used to be a small handful every year; now it’s unusual to see one person die from these types of guns that no civilian has any claim to need.

Also, a bug chunk of the gun homicides that we do have are related to drug gang activity. If you’re not involved in drug gangs, your chances of being killed by a gun are much less than one in a million.

Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

Well, no, the obvious retort is that what fredgiblet said is patently untrue. Every bloody sentence of it.

Making shit up on the internet, and in defense of the desire of idiots to own weapons of mass destruction? What is wrong with people?

Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

Also, dude who never posted here once but has suddenly been on the boards like a rash talking shit about guns…please tell the NRA to stay the fuck away from every one else’s countries and stop spending money lobbying to make our society as fucked up as yours.

hidden_urchin

Wait…you mean the evil commie nanny state took away your guns and murderous criminals didn’t pick up knives instead? What about cars? Did they start using cars to run people down? After all, if someone wants to kill a lot of people then zie will find a way.

No?

IEDs? Poison? Winged demons from the depths of hell?

Still no?

Gee, it’s almost like the gun lobby’s arguments are nothing but that which comes from the back end of a bull.

Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

Except that bullshit can do wonders for your veggie garden.

Carstonio

As someone who doesn’t know if gods exist or not, I wonder why more Christians don’t at least consider the deist solution to the supposed “problem of evil,” where the god is simply indifferent to humanity.

A major reason that I’ve long disagreed with “the opposite of love is not hate but indifference” is that being hurt by someone is usually worse than being ignored. Still, a god’s caring about humanity could just as easily be negative instead of positive. No disagreement about the hatefulness and barbarity of the belief that natural disasters and human-cased tragedies are divine punishments. But that doesn’t mean the belief is factually incorrect.

The God I worship is one who will not let the murder of innocents be the last word, but who promises to bring justice to the victims and justification to the perpetrator. In the end, despite all of my doubts, I am a Christian because I believe that murdered children deserve a future; and I believe that we are entitled to hope for one on their behalf. Without hope for the victims, there is no hope at all.

I believe that those children also deserve a future, but I reject the idea that hope for the victims requires belief in an afterlife or an ultimate justice, because I don’t have the knowledge to say that such things exist or that they don’t exist.

One fact of human existence is that people who do good sometimes suffer anyway and that people who do evil sometimes prosper. What I hear in the lyrics to Farther Along, I hear someone who not only accepts that reality but also sees any attempt at improving human justice as ultimately futile. Fred refuted that in part in his Soul Freedom thread, but there seem to be plenty of people, Christian and otherwise, who view ultimate justice as an excuse not to work for greater temporal justice.

Instead of focusing so much hope for the victims on an afterlife that may or may not exist, perhaps we should focus it more on preventing other children from being victimized.

Carstonio

I like the Susan Faludi/Michael Moore theory that the gun problem in the US is really about racist fears, rooted partly in the wars of conquest on Native Americans and partly from the mindset and militarization involved in perpetuating slavery. Does any of that have parallels in Australian history? Were aborigines living in cities ever subjected to anything like Jim Crow?

http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

The gun-fear lobby has to some extent infected Canada too. The long gun registry, implemented in the 1990s, was purposely sabotaged by gun owners in multiple ways, the most prominent among them purposely driving up costs by requesting forms multiple times because “lost paperwork” is a pretty handy bullshit excuse akin to “the dog ate my homework”.

I feel like if you’re constructing an argument like this, you shouldn’t use checkable statistics unless you’re 100% sure that they support your argument. If they clearly don’t, or it’s even ambiguous, then you should stick to the usual generalities and axioms (“Of course the crime rate would be higher after a gun ban; it stands to reason that criminals will be emboldened if they know that all potential victims will be unarmed!”)

Axioms like that sound pretty good and they’re almost completely unverifiable, since they are almost more like opinions or statements of faith than actual empirical evidence; after all, you can’t say for sure that no criminal anywhere has ever been emboldened by a gun ban, right????

But when you use a specific statistic like that (“the homicide rate in Australia with guns went up for the six years following the gun ban”) you kind of run the risk of someone actually from Australia — or, Hell, someone who owns a computer with Internet access — checking it out and making you look like a bad researcher.

Raymond

The idea that God is indifferent to humanity doesn’t sell.

MaryKaye

I read a study some years ago about suicide rates in Britain. At the time, a common method of suicide involved natural gas from gas ovens. Britain then began to require addition of a foul-smelling chemical to natural gas. It is not too surprising that the rate of suicide via gas ovens went down, as people were deterred by the horrible smell. But it is quite surprising that the overall rate of suicide also went down. The authors of the study noted that suicide is an impulse decision for at least some of the people who do it, and that availability of the culturally important means, or not, affected the number of people who carried it through.

I would expect that some proportion of gun violence is, similarly, impulsive and might not occur if the culturally important means were difficult to get. It’s true that people could use bombs or knives. It’s also true that suicides could use bridges or poison. But some of them didn’t.

I know that the one time I was held at gunpoint it was very much a crime of impulse. A referee call had gone against someone, who fetched his gun, probably from his car, and broke up the sporting event; luckily he didn’t fire it. I can’t know for sure but I don’t think he would have proceeded with fists or knife. The gun did a lot to restore his lacking sense of power in the situation, more than a knife or his fists would have. Fists would have made us angry; the gun made us afraid.

GeniusLemur

And if God is utterly indifferent to humanity, why does it matter that he exists?

Carstonio

That’s obviously understandable if one assumes that only alternative is a loving god. But caring can be positive or negative. The alternatives can be more than just a malevolent god. The caring could be hypercritical or narcissistic or passive-aggressive, or intrusive like a gossipy neighbor. I would think that it would be natural to prefer indifference over even the less noxious of those other alternatives.

Darakou

Australian Aboriginals were historically subjected to segregation policies, such as separate sections in bars, theaters etc. They were relocated onto reserves, I remember learning that in the old days they had to get licenses to purchase alcohol. Then there was the Stolen Generation. Up to 1970, mixed race children were legally allowed to be removed from their parents and placed in state boarding schools. The idea is they would integrate into white society and the black blood would be bred out in several generations. I’d recommend watching the film “Rabbit Proof Fence” for more information.

Kiba

Winged demons from the depths of hell?

Okay, who’s been leaking my plans for world domination?

LouisDoench

I would add one more element to that list of aggravating factors. The US role in WWII. The US as last bastion of liberty gains added cache from the role the US played in liberating Europe from the Nazi’s and destroying the Empire of Japan. A big part of our exceptional-ism problem is rooted in the fight against global forces of evil.

Possibly, although I had hoped people would smart enough to make the mental leap that the liberation of Europe and the defeat of Japan had nothing to do with how well armed the US Civilians were. (How many militias were there in the Philippians and other US colonies, anyway? And were they in any way successful?).

fredgiblet

The overall homicide rates went up. Dead is dead, I’d rather have 100% of murders be committed by guns and a lower murder rate then 0% of the murders committed by guns and a higher murder rate. YMMV.

EllieMurasaki

The overall homicide rates went up.

[citation needed]

And you’ll want to explain why Sgt. Pepper’s citation is wrong, while you’re at it.

fredgiblet

“On the other hand, if banning guns clearly caused a huge rise in the murder rate, I’d have expected Australia to rescind the ban.”

First that would require that politics be evidence-based, it isn’t. Second GUN homicides went down, they were just replaced by other homicides for a net increase.

Murder rates are lower in Australia, just like around most of the world. But then Australia has better social support and less inequality than we do.

fredgiblet

Doubtful. Crime skyrocketed in both Australia and Britain after the bans. My expectation is that the bans prevented a large number of murders of passion, but then the escalation in crime in general creates more opportunities for crimes to go wrong, resulting in more deaths during botched robberies and the like.

Just a thought, I don’t have any statistics on HOW the murders happened.

EllieMurasaki

So you’re arguing that the way to reduce gun homicide in the US is to reduce poverty and income inequality in the US? I’m not seeing the connecting dots, but I am down with any argument that ends with ‘therefore we should reduce poverty and income inequality in the US’.

fredgiblet

I’ve been reading the site for years. Just never bothered posting until now.

According to that very link (that he provided) homicide went up. Now there is one difference from what I’ve previously seen and that is the dip in ’97, however the stats on that link run from June to June, so I’m assuming the stats I saw previously were January to January and showed an increase in ’97 as well. Other than that they pretty much match what I saw before.

fredgiblet

Have you looked at the link? Both of the graphs for homicide show a dip in ’97 followed by being ABOVE ’96 until ’02 when the crime rates dropped again. As I stated a couple posts up the stats I saw before showed an uptick in ’97 as well, I’m guessing because the stats I saw were January to January instead of fiscal year June to June.

EllieMurasaki

Sgt. Pepper is a she, I believe.

Very first paragraph of that link says Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000 population.

Decreased, Mr. Giblet. Not increased. Total homicides may well have gone up, which I’m not seeing any actual indication for on that page, but the population’s gone up too.

EllieMurasaki

And looking at that graph, the only year they show that beat 1993 is 2002, and the overall trendline is still downward. 2002 in fact looks like an outlier, because all years they show after 2002 clock in at fewer than in 1997.

You can prove anything with statistics if you pick the statistics carefully enough. That doesn’t mean that, when you look at the overall picture, anything you’ve just proven is true.

fredgiblet

Check my first post. I said it went up for the 6 years after the ban, and it did.

The point being that the expected result per the gun control advocates would be a sharp reduction in homicide, that didn’t happen. The homicide rate was at a low in ’96-’97, then went up after that despite the ban. It wasn’t until 6 years later that homicides dropped below the number from ’95 (though depending on population growth the RATE might have been lower in ’00). Judging solely by that it’s pretty clear the gun ban did nothing to homicide rates for at least 6 years, and since GUN homicides dropped we know this wasn’t hold-outs keeping their guns, it was gun homicides being replaced with other homicides.

In the meantime the information I’ve seen showed other crimes going way up as well, meaning that for 6 years after the ban started you were LESS safe in Australia than before. In ’02 all the crime rates started dropping rapidly, it makes me curious as to what happened in ’01-’02.

EllieMurasaki

Hey, somebody actually from Australia, can you fact-check this for me? Was the gun-control legislation under discussion advertised as intended to produce a sharp reduction in homicide (gun or otherwise), or just a reduction? And what exactly is meant by ‘gun ban’ here? Not allowed to buy, not allowed to have, applicable to some guns, applicable to all guns? When did it go into effect? I’m trying to figure out how it was supposed to work, how well it worked compared to how well it was supposed to work, and whether how well the people who wrote, passed, and enforced it said it was supposed to work has any similarity to how Mr. Giblet says it was supposed to work.

fredgiblet

To be clear, I don’t know how the gun ban was sold in Australia, it’s entirely possible it was sold solely as “prevent sprees”, in which case it could be called a success.

Damanoid

“First that would require that politics be evidence-based, it isn’t.”

Yeah, funny about that. But seeing as how Australia’s overall homicide rate dropped after that initial rise, AND has continued to drop, AND there have been no gun massacres in Australia since, it seems like the evidence proves that Australians were right to stick with the ban, yes?

So based on the evidence of the Australian ban, we could reasonably expect the overall homicide rate in America to drop over the long term, as well as a reduction of both firearm-related homicides and wholesale massacres. That seems like the evidence-based conclusion to draw from this particular data.

“Murder rates are lower in Australia, just like around most of the world. But then Australia has better social support and less inequality than we do.”

Are you suggesting that Australia’s social support and equality account for their dropping gun-related and overall homicide rates, rather than their actual ban on guns used to shoot and kill people?

I’d certainly accept that a higher level of equality and social support would tend to reduce murder rates. But a quick search seems to indicate that income inequality in Australia has actually increased over the past several years. So the evidence would appear to disprove the economic theory.

It does seem as though the evidence really does point to guns as the culprit, doesn’t it?

Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

But when you use a specific statistic like that (“the homicide rate in Australia with guns went up for the six years following the gun ban”) you kind of run the risk of someone actually from Australia — or, Hell, someone who owns a computer with Internet access — checking it out and making you look like a bad researcher.

Yeah, exactly. I really don’t understand people who make shit up on the internet. Don’t they realise that the rest of us have Google, too? Some of us even (shock, horror) have expertise or direct experience in the shit they’re talking about.

I remember a while ago reading some idiot bloviating about how European socialised medicine only works because they refuse to provide any treatment at all to people aged over 65. And elderly Europeans were responding, saying “didn’t you realise we’re on the internet too?”

Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

The overall homicide rates went up. Dead is dead, I’d rather have 100% of murders be committed by guns and a lower murder rate then 0% of the murders committed by guns and a higher murder rate. YMMV.

Oh my God, dude, get help for your reading comprehension problems, because you’re looking like a King Idiot.The overall homicide rate has been on a steady downward trend.I cited the authoritative source. You pulled the same thing out of your arse that I disproved yesterday. Shove it back up there and ask yourself why you’ve chosen to be an apologist for murder?

http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

Gee, it’s almost like the gun lobby’s arguments are nothing but that which comes from the back end of a bull.

Yeah, but see, Australia censors violent video games. That‘s what did it. The gun thing is just coincidence

http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

One of the Best Things Ever during the primary season waswhen Rick Santorum claimed that the elderly in the Netherlands had to wear bracelets saying “Don’t euthenize me” because 99% of all dutch people over 65 were accidentally euthenized by over-eager doctors against their patients wishes. And then one of his press goons was accosted by a Dutch reporter who asked, “I’m dutch, and that is in no way shape or form true. What’s up with that?”

(The press goon couldn’t even frame to answer the question. His poor mind couldn’t accept the fact that it might matter to a journalist if the candidate’s statements were in diametrical opposition to plain and simple facts. He kept saying something like “you have to understand his committment to a pro-life worldview”, and the reporter kept saying “Yes, but he told a bald-faced lie.”)

Lliira

If history has taught us anything, it’s that violence against children is pervasive, and is just as likely in places where children are taught Bible lessons as they are where children are taught the three R’s.

More likely. While teachers sometimes molest children, when they are found out these days, the norm is to get them in jail and make sure they never have contact with children again. The norm when a child is sexually assaulted by someone with a position of power in a church is the same as the norm for when a teenage girl or grown woman is assaulted, inside or outside a church: absolutely nothing. More punishment for the victim, more victims for the rapists.

Most religions give their hierarchies power without cost or responsibility. Whether it’s Hinduism or Catholicism or Scientology or the SBC, the principle is the same. Say that someone else — 99% of the time, a man — is in charge of other peoples’ immortal souls, and you just put that person above everyone else. And when that person is oh so important, he gets to do what he chooses to the rest of us.

We finally figured out that unlimited power was a recipe for disaster in government pretty recently, historically speaking. It’s past time we figured out that it’s a recipe for disaster in every single aspect of life. Too many of us still accept it at work, in religion, and within families.

fredgiblet

It was dropping before the ban as well. So the ban comes into effect the trend REVERSES for 6 years then continues. I don’t see that as compelling evidence that the gun ban had a positive effect.

At the best what I see is the gun ban having no effect on overall homicides when you look at the entire period given on the site, at worst it reversed the trend temporarily.

fredgiblet

Homicide was trending downward, post-ban the trend reversed temporarily, then it went back down, this doesn’t support the idea that the ban reduced homicides. As I stated a moment ago the best that can be stated is that it had no effect on overall homicides since they trended downward at roughly the same rate over the entire listed period. If the goal was to reduce gun homicides then it’s a success, if the goal was to reduce all homicides it failed as overall things continued as before and in the short-term the effect was negative.

All this is clearly laid out in the link that we have both used.

fredgiblet

That was, indeed, exceedingly amusing. It’s also amusing how righties insist that socialized health care will lead to rationing, when non-socialized health care leads to rationing at least as much if not more. I’ve heard stories from people in socialized healthcare countries going both ways, but no one who wanted to give it up for our system.

Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

Do you know what the word ‘trend’ means? I don’t think you do.

http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

I’ve heard stories from people in socialized healthcare countries going both ways, but no one who wanted to give it up for our system.

Pretty much it. Right-wing pundits will (correctly) cite lots and lots of evidence that if you ask pretty much anyone in any country with socialized health care what they think of their healthcare, they will complain about it.

What they always fail to show is that if you then go on to say “So would you prefer we got rid of it and replaced it with a fully privatized system like in the US?” they will respond in the negative. In some countries, they may also kick you.

As it turns out, the one universal constant about all healthcare systems, socialized and privatized, is that people like to complain about them.

(Too many times I have told the story of my friend who spent a year in england and came back complaining about how horrible the healthcare was because she always had to *wait* in *lines* with *poor people*. Sure, it didn’t cost her anything, but that didn’t make it better. (This is the same person whose response to “what if we had a socialized system but you could pay to upgrade to better service?” was “That would be terrible, because I would always get the terrible non-upgraded service, because how could I justify spending money just to have better service when I could get adequate healthcare for free?” Yeah.))

That’s a really good point. How many people honestly like dealing with the health care system? By definition, most people who have to deal with are ill or know someone who is ill at the time, which makes them irritable. Add in the fact that it’s not always going to be perfect (there will inevitably be a lines at some point, you’re not always going to get along with every doctor or nurse or receptionist, people will make mistakes, it might smell bad, the food might not always be great, an extended stay might be a pain in the ass) and of course people are going to complain about it. The fact that complaints exist isn’t, as you say, a reason for reform.

If people were trying to be honest about comparing health care systems, they would ask people under different health care systems to step back and evaluate their systems as a whole. I think analysts who did that would get the same results you did — very few people actually enjoy going to hospitals regardless of the system, but when it comes to the bottom line people under socialized systems by and large prefer them to ours, at least as frequently as people under privatized systems prefer them (and probably more often).

Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

And what exactly is meant by ‘gun ban’ here? Not allowed to buy, not allowed to have, applicable to some guns, applicable to all guns?

Civilians don’t get to own semi-automatic rifles, aemi-automatic handguns or pump-action handguns.

Other handguns are available to target shooters under strict conditions: ongoing membership of a registered club after a 6 month probationary period using the club’s guns; background checks and licence renewal; and the type of handgun you’re allowed to by depends on the length of your experience and the type of competitions you participate in.

Other rifles may be owned under licence (and with background checks) if you can demonstrate a “Genuine Reason” (or “Genuine Need” for some categories of rifle). For example, you’re a farmer and you need to be able to shoot foxes on your property. The belief that a gun will help you protect yourself against a hypothetical future attacker is not accepted as a genuine need.

In some states if you’re a collector of various weapons you’re allowed to own them (subject to license and storage conditions) provided they are rendered permanently inoperable.

Whatever sort of gun you want, you have to complete an accredited training course in gun safety before you can get a licence.

When did it go into effect?

The biggest change was the National Firearms Agreement, which passed in May 1996 (just over two weeks after the Port Arthur massacre). The agreement included a 12 month amnesty and buy-back period: over 600,000 guns banned under the agreement were handed in by their owners in exchange for compensation, and destroyed.

Was the gun-control legislation under discussion advertised as intended to produce a sharp reduction in homicide (gun or otherwise), or just a reduction?

You know what? I don’t remember anything that specific. My main memory was that when 35 people were murdered in a spree killing the general public response was something like “holy shit this is appalling! How do we stop this from ever happening again?” Plus (sorry) a lot of “you expect this sort of thing in America but we can’t let it happen here”.